Homebrew PCBs

Hi all. 

I have gotten hold of an old HP Laserjet 2100M. It states a resolution of 1200dpi x 1200dpi and so hopefully it perfect for TT. 

I have uploaded a couple of pictures to the album, HP Laserjet 2100M.

The first two are printouts of DJ Delorie's excellent spirals - many thanks. 

picture19 represents the 6mil spiral track and space. 
picture 20 represents the 4 mil spiral track and space. 

I was wondering if anyone has managed similar/better quality. I was hoping for maybe cleaner lines but wondering if this is just a practical limit of the technique. I printed on normal paper for test and measurement. I did set the intensity to 5.  

I mean, its impressive anyway but not sure the tracks would look that great once I tried to print to toner transfer paper and actually transfer to a copper board, etc. So, trying to perfect the settings and try and get the most out of it.

Thanks

Trev

Please resave those images as JPG or PNG and upload them again with descriptions. Think about someone coming across those photos 6 months from now, will they make sense with the description?

Thanks,
Steve Greenfield
your friendly neighborhood moderator

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "trevwhite74" <trevor.white100@...> wrote:

>
> Hi all. 
> 
> I have gotten hold of an old HP Laserjet 2100M. It states a resolution of 1200dpi x 1200dpi and so hopefully it perfect for TT. 
> 
> I have uploaded a couple of pictures to the album, HP Laserjet 2100M.
> 
> The first two are printouts of DJ Delorie's excellent spirals - many thanks. 
> 
> picture19 represents the 6mil spiral track and space. 
> picture 20 represents the 4 mil spiral track and space. 
> 
> I was wondering if anyone has managed similar/better quality. I was hoping for maybe cleaner lines but wondering if this is just a practical limit of the technique. I printed on normal paper for test and measurement. I did set the intensity to 5.  
> 
> I mean, its impressive anyway but not sure the tracks would look that great once I tried to print to toner transfer paper and actually transfer to a copper board, etc. So, trying to perfect the settings and try and get the most out of it.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Trev
>

Sorry, was thinking I would be able to write a description afterwards but the pics just didnt appear. I think I might have done it again. I have changed the filenames and type to png. 

Thanks
--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <alienrelics@...> wrote:

>
> Please resave those images as JPG or PNG and upload them again with descriptions. Think about someone coming across those photos 6 months from now, will they make sense with the description?
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve Greenfield
> your friendly neighborhood moderator
> 
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "trevwhite74" <trevor.white100@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all. 
> > 
> > I have gotten hold of an old HP Laserjet 2100M. It states a resolution of 1200dpi x 1200dpi and so hopefully it perfect for TT. 
> > 
> > I have uploaded a couple of pictures to the album, HP Laserjet 2100M.
> > 
> > The first two are printouts of DJ Delorie's excellent spirals - many thanks. 
> > 
> > picture19 represents the 6mil spiral track and space. 
> > picture 20 represents the 4 mil spiral track and space. 
> > 
> > I was wondering if anyone has managed similar/better quality. I was hoping for maybe cleaner lines but wondering if this is just a practical limit of the technique. I printed on normal paper for test and measurement. I did set the intensity to 5.  
> > 
> > I mean, its impressive anyway but not sure the tracks would look that great once I tried to print to toner transfer paper and actually transfer to a copper board, etc. So, trying to perfect the settings and try and get the most out of it.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Trev
> >
>

I've just seen "0% of 100GB" in the photos section. Is this the truth
or do they make fun of us? This would be astonishing generosity for
yahoo.


ST

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Steve <alienrelics@...> wrote:
> Please resave those images as JPG or PNG and upload them again with descriptions. Think about someone coming across those photos 6 months from now, will they make sense with the description?
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Greenfield
> your friendly neighborhood moderator
>

I have Photos set to Approval by Moderator. We had a problem a while back.

I approved them so you can go in and add descriptions.

Steve Greenfield

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "trevwhite74" <trevor.white100@...> wrote:

>
> Sorry, was thinking I would be able to write a description afterwards but the pics just didnt appear. I think I might have done it again. I have changed the filenames and type to png. 
> 
> Thanks

I'm sure the 0% part is a temporary bug.

It isn't as much the size of a BMP as it is the potential difficulty in viewing them from a browser. JPG, PNG, and GIF are viewable directly from the browser, where formats like BMP and TIF may require either an external viewer or extra plug-ins.

Steve Greenfield

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan <stefan_trethan@...> wrote:

>
> I've just seen "0% of 100GB" in the photos section. Is this the truth
> or do they make fun of us? This would be astonishing generosity for
> yahoo.
> 
> 
> ST
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Steve <alienrelics@...> wrote:
> > Please resave those images as JPG or PNG and upload them again with descriptions. Think about someone coming across those photos 6 months from now, will they make sense with the description?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Steve Greenfield
> > your friendly neighborhood moderator
> >
>

I was more surprised by the 100GB part. I mean what's happed to yahoo?
Have they finally stopped storing our photos on floppy disks (low
density, mind) or what?

Now if they would also give some space for the files section......

ST

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Steve <alienrelics@...> wrote:
> I'm sure the 0% part is a temporary bug.
>

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <alienrelics@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sure the 0% part is a temporary bug.
> 
> It isn't as much the size of a BMP as it is the potential difficulty in viewing them from a browser. JPG, PNG, and GIF are viewable directly from the browser, where formats like BMP and TIF may require either an external viewer or extra plug-ins.
> 
> Steve Greenfield
> 

Did not realise that about BMP. That is a note for the future. Thanks. Have now added some proper desriptions. Thanks. 

Hopefully people can view them now and actually now what I am talking about. 8¬)

Those prints may look awful, but often the boards turn out better than
the print.
The loose sprinkles of toner either don't transfer properly, or if
they transfer they will be under-etched.

Now i'm not sure if your prints are especially bad (they may be, i
have no comparision on hand), but definitely this effect has been
reported a number of times.

There's only one way to know for sure, put it on copper.

ST

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM, trevwhite74
<trevor.white100@...> wrote:

> Hopefully people can view them now and actually now what I am talking about. 8¬)
>

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan <stefan_trethan@...> wrote:
>
> Those prints may look awful, but often the boards turn out better than
> the print.
> The loose sprinkles of toner either don't transfer properly, or if
> they transfer they will be under-etched.
> 
> Now i'm not sure if your prints are especially bad (they may be, i
> have no comparision on hand), but definitely this effect has been
> reported a number of times.
> 
> There's only one way to know for sure, put it on copper.
> 
> ST

Hi ST. 

I agree, i feel the small sprinkle of toner will not transfer. If they do, they will probably etch away. But the lines themselves just do not look that clean/sharp. I was wondering if I was just getting to a practical limit of the toner or if my settings might need tuning. I mean, 4mil and 6mil are very small anyway. I do not even need them right now but boundaries are there to be pushed and it interests me to see what can be achieved and what can be achieved reliably. 

I wondered if the normal paper also does not collect the toner agreesively enough. Maybe there is better paper. I have some toner tranfer paper bought from Pulsar but do not want to waste too much of it at this stage. i did print a little on that and it seemed to look very similar to that of plain paper. 

Trev

The edges will also smooth out a little. How much i can not say.
Definitely they won't be dead straight but then the electrons don't
seem to mind.

You'll likely need different paper. Plain paper does not work very
well, the fibers are on the surface and the toner adheres very well to
them.
Instead you need to use (inkjet) photo paper which has a clay coating,
or even a gel like coating. It will release the toner better.
The clay coated (non-gloss) paper is a safe bet and will work, but i
find the glossy surface "gel" paper produces better quality results.
Some glossy papers however do not work at all so it is a risk.

ST

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:04 PM, trevwhite74
<trevor.white100@...> wrote:

> Hi ST.
>
> I agree, i feel the small sprinkle of toner will not transfer. If they do, they will probably etch away. But the lines themselves just do not look that clean/sharp. I was wondering if I was just getting to a practical limit of the toner or if my settings might need tuning. I mean, 4mil and 6mil are very small anyway. I do not even need them right now but boundaries are there to be pushed and it interests me to see what can be achieved and what can be achieved reliably.
>
> I wondered if the normal paper also does not collect the toner agreesively enough. Maybe there is better paper. I have some toner tranfer paper bought from Pulsar but do not want to waste too much of it at this stage. i did print a little on that and it seemed to look very similar to that of plain paper.
>
> Trev
>

Be careful with different formats.  Some formats are color and if you print 
a color schematic on a black and white printer you may not be able to read 
it.

de Paul, W8AEF

ZF2JI/ZF2TA  FO8DX/FO8PLA  8Q7AA  XZ0A  VU7RG  TX5C

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "trevwhite74" <trevor.white100@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:44 PM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Toner Print quality


--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <alienrelics@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sure the 0% part is a temporary bug.
>
> It isn't as much the size of a BMP as it is the potential difficulty in 
> viewing them from a browser. JPG, PNG, and GIF are viewable directly from 
> the browser, where formats like BMP and TIF may require either an external 
> viewer or extra plug-ins.
>
> Steve Greenfield
>

Did not realise that about BMP. That is a note for the future. Thanks. Have 
now added some proper desriptions. Thanks.

Hopefully people can view them now and actually now what I am talking about. 
8\ufffd)

JPG is quite poor at rendering images with sharp edges, so I would stick with 
GIF or PNG.  The JPG compression algorithm leaves what I think of as "visual 
echoes" or ripples in the image.  These are invisible in photographs, but stand 
out with a vengeance in high contrast images with sharp edges.

Please note that I am very colour blind and see things differently.  I have many 
times experienced poor monitor quality (where I see obvious image artifacts) 
that others don't have any problem with.

BMP is a an uncompressed format (i.e. bloated) and proprietary to M$, though 
many programs can display such images.

Donald.

trevwhite74 wrote:

> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <alienrelics@...> wrote:
>> I'm sure the 0% part is a temporary bug.
>>
>> It isn't as much the size of a BMP as it is the potential difficulty in viewing them from a browser. JPG, PNG, and GIF are viewable directly from the browser, where formats like BMP and TIF may require either an external viewer or extra plug-ins.
>>
>> Steve Greenfield
>>
> 
> Did not realise that about BMP. That is a note for the future. Thanks. Have now added some proper desriptions. Thanks. 
> 
> Hopefully people can view them now and actually now what I am talking about. 8\ufffd)
> 
>

> JPG is quite poor at rendering images with sharp edges, so I would stick
with
> GIF or PNG.  The JPG compression algorithm leaves what I think of as
"visual
> echoes" or ripples in the image.  These are invisible in photographs, but
stand
> out with a vengeance in high contrast images with sharp edges.
> 
> Please note that I am very colour blind and see things differently.  I
have many
> times experienced poor monitor quality (where I see obvious image
artifacts)
> that others don't have any problem with.
> 
> BMP is a an uncompressed format (i.e. bloated) and proprietary to M$,
though
> many programs can display such images.
> 
> Donald.


BMP has no patents (unlike GIF & JPEG), so it's irrelevant that Microsoft
created it (originally for OS/2).  BMP also supports compression, usually
with no loss of detail.

That said, GIF for line drawing, PNG for photos, and JPEG for photo where
fuzzy edges don't matter much.

I occasionally ask for BMP if I suspect I'm going to get a highly compressed
JPEG...

Tony

Hi guys. 

The original prints were taken from printing out pdf files of DJ Delorie's spirals and then looking at the traces with a digital microscope. The format I put the pictures up was more a point for convenience to others viewing. I did assume that bmp was best because it would not lose any data and thus show everything up. jpeg does tend to degrade such types of picture I think. When I tried the png that seemed to work nicely so i stuck with png 

The pdf documents on screen looked fantastic when I zoomed in so I am off the opinion they were very good to print. I did try to import the gerber files but my software did not like them. It slowed the PC down to a halt. 

One of my main concerns was trying to ensure the print settings where definately correct or rather optimal for such a print. 

It does look like I will have to just transfer and etch some to fine out. 

Trev

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan <stefan_trethan@...> wrote:
>
> Those prints may look awful, but often the boards turn out better than
> the print.
> The loose sprinkles of toner either don't transfer properly, or if
> they transfer they will be under-etched.

I was thinking the same thing.

> Now i'm not sure if your prints are especially bad (they may be, i
> have no comparision on hand), but definitely this effect has been
> reported a number of times.

That looks like dithering, intentional "noise" inserted by the driver for better greyscale images.

Trev, you might look in your printer settings for something like "line drawings" or something like that. It may be currently set to "best graphic" or something like that. If there is a "dithering" setting, turn it off, or failing that set it to the smallest setting.

Steve Greenfield

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Smith" <ajsmith@...> wrote:

> BMP has no patents (unlike GIF & JPEG), so it's irrelevant that Microsoft
> created it (originally for OS/2).  BMP also supports compression, usually
> with no loss of detail.
> 
> That said, GIF for line drawing, PNG for photos, and JPEG for photo where
> fuzzy edges don't matter much.

PNG is good for photos and line drawings. PNG uses non-lossy compression, depending on the program you use it can compress quite a bit. It also supports variable bit depth from 1 bit to 24 bits plus an 8 bit alpha channel.

IE will open BMPs directly but most other browsers you must download a BMP and open it in something else. Most people don't save them with any compression.

JPG should be used for photos only. It compresses 24 bit images down quite a bit and its lossy compression is designed specifically for busy photographic images.

An article I wrote about web graphics for an Amiga newsletter some time ago:
http://www.upchug.com/webgraphicstut3/index.html

Steve Greenfield

I saw a quip on TV the other day about the Library of Congress doing
archiving of documents and pictures.
They are doing everything in un-compressed TIFF to keep the best resolution.

Their main thing is to save documents from 'bit rot' once they are
digitized.  The synopis was expect to
copy all your digital materials once every 5 to 10 years to the
'latest media', and expect to have to change
format, so use non-compressing formats so nothing gets lost in the
long run. ... Your tax money at work.

I just thought that was interesting.

<stefan_trethan@> wrote:

> That looks like dithering, intentional "noise" inserted by the driver for better greyscale images.
> 
> Trev, you might look in your printer settings for something like "line drawings" or something like that. It may be currently set to "best graphic" or something like that. If there is a "dithering" setting, turn it off, or failing that set it to the smallest setting.
> 
> Steve Greenfield
>

Now that is something interesting. That maks sense. I shall have a look for these settings. 

Thanks

It doesn't surprise me that the concept of "lossless compression" does
not seem to mean anything to the government.
After all, they never do the same work for less money so how can you
possibly store the same data in less space... ;-)

ST

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Jack Coats <jack@...> wrote:
> I saw a quip on TV the other day about the Library of Congress doing
> archiving of documents and pictures.
> They are doing everything in un-compressed TIFF to keep the best resolution.
>
> Their main thing is to save documents from 'bit rot' once they are
> digitized.  The synopis was expect to
> copy all your digital materials once every 5 to 10 years to the
> 'latest media', and expect to have to change
> format, so use non-compressing formats so nothing gets lost in the
> long run. ... Your tax money at work.
>
> I just thought that was interesting.
>
>

I agree, their perspective (with our money) is different.  For them
lossless archives
are their goal.  Loosing something with an algorithm that 'usually',
'theoretically',
or 'mathematically' ALMOST works would scare them off.

Any loss in their eyes is a loss forever.  And each transition to a
new technology will
have that problem too.

I'm not justifying them, just trying to understand them.  Yea, wasting
MY MONEY gets to me, so
at least understanding why helps keep me from going postal on them!

The algorithms are well understood, mathematically sound and all that.
For example if you put something in a ZIP file not one bit can be
changed, or it won't work correctly on the other end.

Probably someone who knows what he is doing took that decision for
them, and likely for good reason. It is easy to put holes into any
such statement without knowing all the details.
Storage space grows exponentially, so probably in a few years it won't
matter. I don't think any of the major picture formats will be
obsolete in the future to the extent that you can't open them.
There'll always be import filters and stuff that can deal with it.

I think it is a good thing that they digitise all that information,
although i think google will do a better job making it accessible to
me (considering that my tax money does not go towards the library of
congress that is to be expected). It's high time we got rid of all
that paper, and the associated waste and inefficiency of distributing
it.

ST

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Jack Coats <jack@...> wrote:
> I agree, their perspective (with our money) is different.  For them
> lossless archives
> are their goal.  Loosing something with an algorithm that 'usually',
> 'theoretically',
> or 'mathematically' ALMOST works would scare them off.
>
> Any loss in their eyes is a loss forever.  And each transition to a
> new technology will
> have that problem too.
>
> I'm not justifying them, just trying to understand them.  Yea, wasting
> MY MONEY gets to me, so
> at least understanding why helps keep me from going postal on them!
>